I agree with Milton that any process, if not carefully carried out,
might get rapidly out of bounds or serve no purpose.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:
> Carlos While a list of "prohibited names" is not my idea of the best
> policy, if we managed to get a list of _specific_ names defined, and
> it was of reasonably small size, and ICANN and the GAC agreed that
> the list is ALL THERE IS, there are no grounds for objecting to
> strings that are not on the list, it would be a step forward.
> 
> People who wanted controversial strings could find ways to express
> their ideas without using the strings in the sensitive list.
> 
> What we _don't_ want are general criteria (e.g., no strings that are
> "offensive," etc.) that anyone can raise about any string for any
> reason, forcing everyone to become locked in fruitless debates over
> acceptable meanings.
> 
> Creating such a list, of course, makes it abundantly clear that ICANN
> is engaged in the regulation and restriction of expression. But
> better to clearly define and minimize the censorship than to let it
> be open-ended, arbitrary and potentially limitless.
> 
>>>> Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> 4/9/2007 8:15 AM >>>
> I go further -- I would suggest ICANN prepares a PDP on how to
> establish a bridge with governments and communities (regional,
> idiomatic, indigenous etc), and how to define criteria, for building
> a full database of internationalized names (regularly updated by a
> guidance board) which would not be acceptable as g/sTLDs. This would
> be part of the effort of distancing itself from having to decide in
> the last instance if a name is "good" or "bad".
> 
> In addition, ICANN would launch another PDP on expanding thematic 
> criteria (geographic, historical, idiomatic etc) for new TLDs to be
> able to decide in a clear and timely process on .berlin, .gal, .rio,
>  .katakana, .syracuse, .bio, .social :) etc etc.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Horacio T. Cadiz wrote:
>> Milton Mueller wrote:
>> 
>>>> I also think it has become crystal clear that TLDs which
>>>> ombination of letters might confront resistance (of cultural,
>>>> legal or similar nature) in one or more countries or
>>>> communities, should in principle be discarded
>>> Completely wrong, imho. I understand that you are trying to show
>>>  respect for different cultures, etc. But the true effect of
>>> trying to do so is simply to immobilize everyone. If everyone has
>>> a veto on what is published, nothing is published.
>> How then is it to be balanced in the gTLD? In the end, even if only
>>  the most meaningless groups of letters and numbers will ever get 
>> registered in a gTLD, the fact is that censorship won't stop there.
>> 
>> 
>> For example, if a pro-Nazi group in Germany registers its 
>> "hitlerisgod" domain under the .PH domain, do you think the
>> controversy would end because it is not in a gTLD?
>> 
>> Should we not forget the precept that the answer to "bad speech" is
>>  not the curtailment of "free speech" but in the propagation of
>> "good speech." Both "good speech" and "bad speech" die when there
>> is no "free speech."
>> 
> 

-- 
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************